United States v. Sylvester Martin
708 F. App'x 80
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- In 1998 Martin was implicated in a shooting; police recovered his gun and ballistics linked spent casings to it. He fled after posting bail and was later extradited.
- After a state mistrial (jury saw him in handcuffs), federal prosecutors indicted Martin for being a felon in possession of a firearm; a jury convicted him and he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 276 months. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Martin later filed habeas petitions; after Johnson v. United States, he obtained permission to file a successive §2255 motion limited to Johnson-based relief. The District Court granted resentencing in light of Johnson.
- At resentencing the Presentence Report’s higher offense level based on a prior murder conviction was rejected; offense level was reduced to 16, CHC VI, producing a Guidelines range of 46–57 months. The District Court imposed 50 months and no supervised release, noting Martin had already served 120 months and considering §3553(a) factors (age, health).
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, identifying multiple potential arguments Martin wanted to raise (wrongful conviction, actual innocence, jurisdiction, competency evaluation, double jeopardy, statute of limitations). The District Court had only adjudicated the Johnson sentencing issue; other claims were outside the successive §2255 grant and were not considered.
- The Third Circuit reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, conducted an independent review of the record for nonfrivolous issues, concluded none existed, affirmed the resentencing, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Anders brief and counsel’s compliance with L.A.R. 109.2 | Counsel failed to identify nonfrivolous issues; Martin sought to raise multiple collateral claims | Counsel complied with L.A.R. 109.2 and identified potential claims, concluding none were nonfrivolous | Court: Counsel adequately fulfilled L.A.R. 109.2; Anders procedure satisfied |
| Scope of successive §2255 relief after Johnson | Martin sought to raise wrongful conviction, jurisdiction, competency, double jeopardy, statute-of-limitations, actual innocence | Government/record: §2255 permission limited to Johnson-based sentencing challenge; other claims were beyond the authorized scope and previously raised | Court: Other claims are outside the successive §2255 grant and cannot be considered unless new law or evidence is shown |
| Sentencing reduction under Johnson and Guidelines calculation | Martin argued the ACCA enhancement no longer applied; objected to higher offense level tied to prior murder conviction in PSR | District Court reduced offense level to 16, CHC VI, Guidelines 46–57; imposed 50 months considering time served and §3553(a) factors | Court: District Court properly resentenced under Johnson; 50-month sentence and reasoning were lawful |
| Existence of any nonfrivolous appellate issues (e.g., actual innocence, double jeopardy, statute of limitations) | Martin asserted multiple substantive claims challenging conviction and jurisdiction | Counsel and Court: those claims were previously litigated or not presented with new law/evidence; thus frivolous on this record | Court: No nonfrivolous issues apparent; appeal dismissed and counsel permitted to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for court-appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (standards for reviewing adequacy of Anders brief and independent appellate review)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional)
- United States v. Martin, [citation="311 F. App'x 517"] (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming Martin’s original conviction and ACCA sentence)